Re: General Election campaign : Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:29 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Interesting thoughts on the need for Austerity.
Government borrowing as a % of GDP is higher today than when the Tories came to power 10 years ago and yet, now, they can spend freely because "borrowing is under control" ??
As for Brexit, we both know that, depending on whether the Tories gain a big enough overall majority, the UK will leave with "no deal" at the end of 2020, blaming the EU for not giving them everything that they want.
You will have noticed that there will no longer be anyone willing to go against Boris/Farage/Cummings - a party stacked with yes men and the (significant)move to the right may well mean that the "oven ready" deal, never actually gets "baked".

What was the Tories plan - reduce the deficit - has that happened? Even you have to admit it has fallen significantly since 2009 when under Labour it was £90bn - about £110bn in today's money was in 2019 approx. £25bn. So they have done what they set out to do. Austerity was required because of the financial situation the Tories inherited i.e. a massive surplus of government spending over revenue generation.

It is very unlikely the UK will leave with no deal - as for yes men you can hardly say the Corbyn has many 'no men' in his inner clam. Your myopia is duly noted

Re: General Election campaign : Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:35 pm  

bren2k wrote:

This has been thoroughly debunked, over and over again; the need for austerity was the biggest lie ever told.

"Politicians, but also the media, told us the government had to cut spending to prevent another financial disaster. Most economists disagreed with this theory. There was never even a chance of a financial crisis in the years after 2010, and even when that became clear to everyone, austerity continued. I estimate the average household lost resources worth £10,000 as a result of this disastrous policy, and many suffered much more than the average."

Simon Wren-Lewis - emeritus professor of economics and fellow of Merton College, University of Oxford

"Was austerity necessary?
It can be argued that a rapidly rising public debt is dangerous and that if a country’s public debt is excessive, its economic performance suffers. So it is necessary to stop the public debt rising inexorably and to put it on a downward path.
The longer one delays implementing necessary austerity, the more painful the cuts will be when they come. So the fiscal problems the UK faced in 2010 meant that some measure of austerity was necessary."

"Postponing the introduction of austerity until the economy had recovered sufficiently would not have been credible. The markets would have taken the view: “If the government can find one excuse for failing to implement austerity immediately, it will surely find another excuse in (say) a couple of years – perhaps it will then argue that the recovery ‘is not yet fully consolidated’.” So a promise to introduce austerity “when the time is right” is unlikely to have been believed."

"What would have happened if we had delayed austerity? The likelihood is that the budget deficit would be expected to be higher over the next few years, meaning a much higher stock of government debt in the future. In order to induce investors to hold this debt, the government would have to offer a higher rate of return. So long-term interest rates would be expected to be higher in the future – and this should push up current long-term interest rates."

My dad's bigger than your dad - we can all quote a side of the story to suit our argument - doesn't mean its definitive.

Re: General Election campaign : Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:39 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

The catastrophe was not of Labour making unless they were also running the American economy at the time. They chose to save the banks in order to protect people’s money.
I would remind you that the Conservatives promised to balance the books within four years and to protect our AAA rating neither of which they did. The continuation of austerity was a political choice.

Labour was running a huge budget deficit - that had nothing to do with the banks and they had agreed that spending needed to be reduced and they would have done the same if they had stayed in power. Projections for 2010 were £190bn!!

Re: General Election campaign : Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:00 pm  

Why is it unlikely that we'll leave the EU without a deal?
Sabine Wayand was quoted as saying there is not enough time to 31.12.20 to complete a full free trade deal and we'll get the bare bones of a deal or no deal at all.
Seeing as she has run rings round our lot for the past two years or so I'd imagine her version of events is far more likely an outcome than anything coming from our bunch of incompetents.

Re: General Election campaign : Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:47 am  

Father Ted wrote:

Why is it unlikely that we'll leave the EU without a deal?
Sabine Wayand was quoted as saying there is not enough time to 31.12.20 to complete a full free trade deal and we'll get the bare bones of a deal or no deal at all.
Seeing as she has run rings round our lot for the past two years or so I'd imagine her version of events is far more likely an outcome than anything coming from our bunch of incompetents.

Because leaving with no deal harms the EU too and they will want to avoid that at all costs - a deal is perfectly possible if the will is there and the UK has some leverage with which to bargain with.

Re: General Election campaign : Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:56 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Because leaving with no deal harms the EU too and they will want to avoid that at all costs - a deal is perfectly possible if the will is there and the UK has some leverage with which to bargain with.

Fundamentally, the EU will not allow a full free trade deal, it actually harms their own future.
To allow a member "state" to leave with a FTA and allow them to potentially negotiate some preferential deals with other countries, from the EU's perspective, would be madness and as negotiations stall, we will be drip fed the "nasty EU" lines and then drop out with "no deal" at the end of 2020. It could be sooner if/when The Tories realise that the game is up.

I think it was Barnier, who said that the UK will become a "competitor of The EU when they leave and there isn't an organisation in the world that would give a competitor a "leg up" when their own business is at risk.

Johnson may like to pretend that he has an oven ready deal but the main ingredients are still very much missing.

Re: General Election campaign : Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:31 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Johnson may like to pretend that he has an oven ready deal but the main ingredients are still very much missing.

The oven.

Re: General Election campaign : Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:06 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Fundamentally, the EU will not allow a full free trade deal, it actually harms their own future.
To allow a member "state" to leave with a FTA and allow them to potentially negotiate some preferential deals with other countries, from the EU's perspective, would be madness and as negotiations stall, we will be drip fed the "nasty EU" lines and then drop out with "no deal" at the end of 2020. It could be sooner if/when The Tories realise that the game is up.

I think it was Barnier, who said that the UK will become a "competitor of The EU when they leave and there isn't an organisation in the world that would give a competitor a "leg up" when their own business is at risk.

Johnson may like to pretend that he has an oven ready deal but the main ingredients are still very much missing.

The last thing the EU want is a large economy being a competitor on its doorstep - I don't buy this its all the EU fault but it takes two to tango and the EU have to be prepared to compromise too. No deal is a perceived disaster all round and we have seen with the EU nothing happens until the last minute.

I agree with your comment re. other countries wanting to leave but none of the potential leavers could harm the EU in the way we can.

Re: General Election campaign : Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:28 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

What was the Tories plan - reduce the deficit - has that happened? Even you have to admit it has fallen significantly since 2009 when under Labour it was £90bn - about £110bn in today's money was in 2019 approx. £25bn. So they have done what they set out to do. Austerity was required because of the financial situation the Tories inherited i.e. a massive surplus of government spending over revenue generation.

The Tories plan was to eliminate the deficit and reduce the national debt, that hasn’t happened, despite moving the date it was due to happen several times.

Sal Paradise wrote:

Labour was running a huge budget deficit - that had nothing to do with the banks and they had agreed that spending needed to be reduced and they would have done the same if they had stayed in power. Projections for 2010 were £190bn!!

1997 when labour came to power Debt was 43.2% of GDP.

In 2007 after 10 years of labour debt was 41.5% of GDP.

It is a myth labour were running huge budget deficits before the global financial crisis.

You have stated this before and been challenged on it before, you didn’t respond and then go on to repeat the same Tory lie.

Re: General Election campaign : Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:58 pm  

We are not a large economy compared to the EU, USA, China etc. Why do you believe the EU are going to go out of their way to help us. They do not want to encourage others to leave by providing us with a free trade agreement.
I think you have been listening to Boris too much and have started to believe his lies. The truth is we need the EU more than they need us.